2006 (11) TMI 615 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive)'s revision of the assessing authority's order under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
2. Applicability and interpretation of section 7D of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.
3. Jurisdiction and power of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) under section 10B of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive)'s Revision:
The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) initiated proceedings u/s 10B of the Act, arguing that the composition amount could not be accepted for works contracts older than 180 days from the application date. The Deputy Commissioner (Executive) set aside the orders dated April 19, 2005, passed u/s 7D of the Act, and remanded the matter for fresh orders. The Tribunal, however, held that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) had no jurisdiction to revise the agreement made u/s 7D of the Act, as it was an agreement and not an order.

2. Applicability and Interpretation of Section 7D:
Section 7D of the Act allows the assessing authority to accept a composition money in lump sum in lieu of tax payable, subject to the State Government's directions. The Tribunal and previous judgments emphasized that once the composition application is accepted u/s 7D, it overrides other provisions of the Act, and regular assessment proceedings cannot be initiated. The Full Bench in Bhadauria Gram Sewa Sansthan v. Assistant Commissioner, Sales Tax, held that both the Department and the dealer are bound by the agreement under section 7D, and it displaces the requirement of regular assessment proceedings.

3. Jurisdiction and Power of the Deputy Commissioner (Executive):
The Tribunal held that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) could not revise the agreement u/s 7D of the Act under section 10B, as section 10B pertains to the revision of orders, not agreements. The Full Bench in Bhadauria Gram Sewa Sansthan further clarified that the power to revise or alter an agreement under section 7D is not provided under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, except in cases of concealment or furnishing of wrong details, which was not alleged in this case.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed all four revisions, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the Deputy Commissioner (Executive) had no jurisdiction to revise the agreements made u/s 7D of the Act. The agreements under section 7D are binding and cannot be revised under section 10B of the Act.